Posted
by
kdawsonon Sunday September 09, 2007 @02:12PM
from the george-orwell-meets-the-keystone-kops dept.

uh oh notes a story from Down Under where a police investigation came to a screeching halt as a man being investigated by the police found tracking devices in two of his cars, ripped them out, and listed them on an auction site. "Ralph Williams, of Cromwell, said he found the devices last week in his daughter's car, which he uses, and in his flatmate's car after the cars were seized by police and taken away for investigation."

It's well-known that the police have and use tracking devices; they can get warrants for them and present the results as evidence in trials. And just because he has a couple of them doesn't mean that the police actually placed them where he says he found them. Maybe somebody at the police station where he picked up the cars was careless with inventory, and he swiped a couple.

That's exactly what I was going to write. But then, suddenly, monkeys flew out of my ass and while I was dealing with that, you beat me to the post. Oh well, one lives and learns; sleep with butt cheeks clenched tight from now on.

If the police leave something in your car like that, do you now legally own them? If a burglar breaks into your house and leaves his jacket, I'm pretty sure he can't ask for it back. If the police did not obtain a warrant, it seems like an analogous situation. I'm not sure what the rules are if the cops did obtain a warrant.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

While you're being facetious, if you do find something securely attached to your car, (Not just sitting on it, which could have been set there temporarily, actually attached to the car.) it is in fact yours unless someone can step forward and claims it.

This is false. If a meter wench put clamps on your wheels, they do not then automatically belong to you. And if someone welds a can of caltraps under the rear bumper of your car (to be shook loose at random), you can not be held responsible for accidents that's caused by them.

And no, if a burglar drops his wallet with $1,000 on your floor, that doesn't make the money yours. He may be guilty of a crime, but that doesn't give you any rights to what's not yours. Crime must not pay, neither for the perpetrator nor the victim (when it becomes profitable to be a victim, people will seek to become one, which increases crime instead of lowering it).

Transference of ownership occurs when both parties agree to it. It's not enough that one person thinks it's an ownership transfer.What this guy did was theft. The police might or might not have broken a law by placing the devices on his car, but that's irrelevant to the ownership of the devices.

Minor correction, the example you give of a burglar dropping his wallet is an example of accidentally leaving the object in somebody's care. In this instance, the police knowingly and willingly put the devices into his possession. And you're right, unless he willingly accepts the devices, then the rightful owner doesn't change...EXCEPT, when he found the devices, he clearly opted to take ownership, and proceeded to attempt a sale. Unless some law prohibits ownership of these devices, then he has every right to do with them as he chooses (as long as it remains within the confines of the law;). The really interesting part is, if there is a law prohibiting ownership of these devices, it means the police department is an accessory to the crime, in addition to any other crime they committed in placing those nifty little toys in the first place.

Of course, now this guy has just pissed on the police...even if he weasels out of whatever he's guilty of, they will bust this guy's balls for years to come.

In the minds of most police, they are not subject to the law. They ARE the law. Just ask the next one you see on the street (and hope he has a sense of humor). Personally, I would have driven to the officer's house on numerous occasions while sending him messages about "the operation" and finally telling him "the cheeseberger is ready to be fried."

My understanding is that he called the police and asked if they'd left anything in his car. They explicitly said "No", disclaiming any ownership. Perhaps the cop who told him that -- acting as an agent for the police department -- should be charged with theft, but the gentleman here was at worst guilty of receiving stolen property. Since he received it in good faith, I don't think any such charge should go anywhere.

If a meter wench put clamps on your wheels, they do not then automatically belong to you.

No shit, Sherlock. Did the big 'Property of The City' on it clue you in there? There's a reason they put that on there, you know.

He found unlabeled boxes attached to his car. He called the police, he asked if the boxes were theirs. They were not. (At least, according to the police, and, obviously, they'd know.)

And if someone welds a can of caltraps under the rear bumper of your car (to be shook loose at random), you can not be held responsible for accidents that's caused by them.

You can't be held responsible for something you had no cause to know about, but that's entirely unrelated to whether or not it's your property. If they stole a box of nails out of your front seat and stuck them under your bumper, or just unattached your bumper and made it fall off, you aren't liable either. (Assuming the facts are not in question.)

And no, if a burglar drops his wallet with $1,000 on your floor, that doesn't make the money yours. He may be guilty of a crime, but that doesn't give you any rights to what's not yours.

Which is why I made the distinction between 'attached' and not attached. Sometimes things fall on or in your property. That does not make them yours. (Unless they are vegetation, which oddly enough is yours in most places.)

And sometimes things are left on your property, for you, and they are in fact yours.

It's all what a reasonable person would think. A reasonable person assumes a wallet laying on the ground is not for him (Even in his own house), whereas a reasonable person would assume an unlabeled envelope taped to his door full of cash is for him, even if he can think of no reason why this would be.(1) However, sitting in his front lawn, nope, not for him.

Likewise, if you're parked in a parking lot and walk up and see a cooler full of soda sitting on your car, it's reasonable to assume some ass is just using your car as a table and that is not, in fact, a gift.

And if you walk out and see something stuck under your wipers?(2) That is pretty clearly someone leaving you something on purpose.

In other words, while something simply being on your property doesn't make it yours (And I didn't say it did.), it doesn't mean it's not yours. Transfer of ownership can be implied by leaving something for someone.

It happens all the time with delivery people, or people leaving things in mailboxes. (According to postal regulations, things that enter the postal system are property of the recipient.) Or, like I said, things stuck under wipers.

He checked to see if the police had left it, which would be the only people that reasonable would attach things to his car not as a gift, and it wasn't them.

Now, if someone else shows up and claims it's theirs and the left it attached to his car by accident, he might be in trouble, but as it pretty obviously is the police's, only they would have grounds for complaint. And they can't because they said it wasn't theirs, leaving the obvious implication it was his.

1) Well, it might be on the wrong house, but that doesn't really apply to this case.

2) And that raises an interesting question. Are you honestly asserting that people can't legally claim ownership of pieces of paper stuck under their wipers? And before you say 'Paper is valueless', let's postulate it is an 85 dollar concert ticket.

And no, if a burglar drops his wallet with $1,000 on your floor, that doesn't make the money yours. He may be guilty of a crime, but that doesn't give you any rights to what's not yours.
[...]

And sometimes things are left on your property, for you, and they are in fact yours.

Waitaminute, so if the neighbor walks his dog and it craps on my lawn, and while he's doing it the neighbor drops his wallet, the dog crap belongs to me, but the wallet does not? How unfair can life be?

The problem with that philosophy is who gets to classify someone as reasonable?

Strangely enough, in the American system, the courts do. Many laws are based around what a "reasonable" person would do with the interpretation of reasonable being left up to the courts. It's impossible to write laws that take into account all possible situations. That's why we have a judicial system which as the job of interpreting the laws and applying them to real life situations.

In Germany, you're now accused of being a "hacker" if you own "hacking tools" (like nmap or other tools used to secure your own network). So I wouldn't feel too safe. Depending on where you are, of course.

OK, I'm never going to Germany.

I could easily be accused of being a rapist, since I "own" certain "raping tools", i.e. a penis.

O.J.: Radio interview quote from Marine Corps General Reinwald and a female radio host. He wants to host some boy scouts at the training center for some practise excercises. As followsFEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?The radio went silent and the interview ended. You gotta love the Marines!

In general, in common law jurisdictions, I think if someone leaves there property on your land (which is a similar sutuation), it is still owned by them. You are supposed to try to return it or, at least, keep it for so many years in case they ask for it back.

Assuming the police are responsible though, and they aren't admitting it is theirs, I'd imagine it is fair game. They can hardly complain about him selling their property if they deny it belongs to them.

I've just read a chapter on accessio (Wikipedia link) [wikipedia.org] in a book I have. That is the principle (originally of Roman law) by which the owner of a greater thing (e.g.: a car) can derive possession and possible ownership of a smaller thing (e.g.: a tracking device) that has been attached to that greater thing. This would occur if a house (lesser) was built on a piece of land (greater), or something was written on, painted or stuck to another object such as a parchment, statue, garment or building. Note that t

Usually the lists are maintained by the police (in Denmark, at least), so that would be a moot point. Forking over a small amount of money to get a compatible cable, then blanking the IMEI and replacing it with one from an old phone that you then reported stolen, however...:)

At what point does it become viable to sue the police for their lies and denials on this case?

And what kind of law requires a warrent to do something, except when the police are claiming they are in a hurry and don't need a warrent if they think the judge will be on their side? Sounds like their judges have balls even smaller than those of American judges when it comes to stricking down bad laws.

I bet 90% of the time, the police intend to be in a hurry, and don't even consider asking for the warrent.

And what kind of law requires a warrent to do something, except when the police are claiming they are in a hurry and don't need a warrent if they think the judge will be on their side?

You do realize that the US has very similar rules of evidence, right? That whole 'exigent circumstances' thing? There are similar rules for FISA wiretaps, even before this whole NSA scandal thing, in that DHS could have tapped someone's phone then gone and gotten a warrent retrospectively.

It's more limited than the scope of this law seems to be, but the idea is by no means absent from the US legal system.

You do realize that Canada has similar "exigent circumstances" laws, right? And that your rights with respect to the police are not absolute, in fact evidence tainted by violation of your rights may be used against you in court? And that constitutional challenges to laws may only be made if you have standing - you must have been wronged by the law to challenge its constitutionality (well, and Parliament may request the judiciary give an opinion on a bill or law).

***You being a Canadian and all it is really none of your business.***

There was a time when a lot of Americans figured that we should mind our own damn business. No more -- perhaps regretably. Back then I'd have agreed with you I think.

As long as George the Clueless, Dick Cheney and the 49 mental midgets in the senate who back those two clowns 98% of the time think it is perfectly OK to mind other country's business, we Americans really shouldn't complain about foreigners expressing a bit of distaste f

That's what "Police Psychics" are for. To give them an excuse to follow up leads they get from illegally gathered evidence.

At least, that's what my scam would be if I were taking money from taxpayers under the pretense of spooky mystical crime-solving powers. I see no reason that no one else would've thought of such an obvious (and "plausibly deniable") scam.

What makes you think they didn't have a warrant? The fact that the police didn't tell the guy that they had installed the tracking devices when he asked? So far as I know, the police aren't required to answer honestly when you ask them whether or not they're spying on you.

Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing. Thisdoesn't mean that disrespect for the rules in general should be ensrined into the lawor SOP. If the situation is really serious enough that you need to ignore the usualrules then you need to be prepared to take any of the consequences for breaking them.

This is especially true for anyone that is supposed to be "setting an example".

If you are a cop and aren't willing to take the consequences for breaking the rules,then it's pretty obvious that the situation doesn't warrant breaking them. Being toolazy to get a judge's signature is not a good excuse. Writting the law so that copscan be lazy as a matter of routine is not good.

Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing.

The problem with that statement is that the "bad guys" think they're the "good guys", and will do the same thing.

I don't exactly know which statement you're talking about McCain and torture... but I guess I liked it better when he was saying (to paraphrase) that "we don't torture because we don't want our guys to be tortured." That was a few years ago, and he's become more wishy-washy since then.

he is in the Grand Old Pedophiles and Corrupt Thieves and Draft Dodgers and Deserters Party, which has become little more than a machine of immoral cowardly thieves stealing as much as they can from the public tills.

You'll have to be more specific I'm afraid, I still can't tell which party that is.

If the old man finds doing his job to be such an inconvenience, maybe it's time to retire and join the rest of the fogies in Shady Acres. Judges / Magistrates / Trial Commissioners / Whatever The Hell You Have In Jurisdiction X know very well that late night phone calls and police knocking on your door at 4am to get warrants or EPOs or what-have-you signed is part of the job. The stuff you see in police procedural dramas where the cops don't want to call Judge SoandSo because it would be a horror to wake him up is silly. To me, "not wanting to wake the judge" is a sign that the evidence for the warrant is paper thin, and they know he'll chew their ass for waking him up over nothing, when they SHOULD be waking him up over -something-.

I would have simply removed them, disabled them, taken them out on some back road, and run over them a few times, followed by a thorough beating with a sledgehammer. The police won't admit they were there, so why should you? Then they'd have to admit to them to get them back, and you could plausibly say you never knew they were there, and thus couldn't be held responsible for their disappearance.

Now if you want to get really funny, leave them powered up and transmitting on aforementioned backroad for a few minutes, make sure they get at least one location transmission off, and then beat the crap out of them.

Why admit that you have them? So that you can tell the media of shady police shenanigans. Otherwise no one else would know these things occur. This should hopefully make the police more careful not to do such things next time. And it will alert regular citizens that such things can happen so beware when the police take your stuff.

Nope. You want to confuse the piss out of the cops. find where you can apply the trackers to that will be incredibly random. Taxicab is the best choice as they go all over with no real pattern. A large stray dog is also fun.

Since I'm currently a wee bit pissed at McDonalds, I'd tack it to their trucks and let them explain to the cops why such a highly suspicious guy like me spends so much time driving to and from their depots.

A city bus is another good choice; some might switch routes from day-day, making an apparently random set of non-random patterns, as well as driving the cops bonkers if they try to tail the car based on the location data -- "we couldn't catch up, this bus kept getting in the way.."

I also like the idea of driving to the mall and putting them on someone else's car, as well as putting them on a neighbor's car, which might never get found since the car would keep returning "home".

Or even better, put each of them into separate packages, mail one to China and one to America.Would love to see the police phone bill after that ^_^--

If the device is not subscribed to roaming service, it could be a waste of postage.

I think it would be much more fun to wrap the GPS antenna in foil so it can't give the location. Then put it in a backpack and spend a few hours shopping near police parking and impound lots. Unwrap the antenna for a few minutes at each location before catching the city bus.

Don't disable them. The cops will just do a better job hiding the next set.

They expect you to be where the tracker says you are, so keep them in the car. When it comes time to engage in some activity of questionable legality, take it out. Maybe have a friend carry it in the opposite direction. When you are done, put it back in your car.

This could turn out to be the best alibi you could have.

OTOH, if you aren't doing anything worthy of suspicion, you can really have some
fun with the cops.

I believe that at some point in the future tracking devices are going to be mandatory and embedded in all vehicles. This will probably be based on some security or safety concern, which may even be imaginary. Another one reason to be car-free.

And that's fine, if the people agree to such laws being passed, and so long as it does not interfere with their constitution. Of course driving is not a right, no one seems to realize that it is a privilege that comes with responsibilities.

Going down that road covertly is just going to create a lot of hate towards their government.

- We only cover your car if you drive according to the law. Three years ago you were going 2mph above the speed limit, hence you invalidated your policy and we are not obliged to pay.- Why didn't you notify me then?- According to the policy, we're not obliged to do that either.- Are you obliged to do anything?- Maybe, but we're not obliged to answer that question.

When I bought a Progressive policy a few weeks ago, I was asked if I wanted to have one installed. Considering my total daily commute is 6 miles, it would certainly save me a lot of money...But I didn't like the privacy aspect./I would love to ride a bike to work instead of a car, but that option vetoed by someone else.

Have you never heard of OnStar [onstar.com]? That fits exactly what you describe - a perceived additional sense of security and safety by having a corporate entity (or a law enforcement or other governmental agency with or without a warrant) track your every move and even listen in on your conversations remotely. The courts have sided with disallowing OnStar's use for listening in on conversations inside the vehicle, but all it will take is one judge and that's out the window. OnStar's just one more good reason not to purchase a GM vehicle.

And as I recall, the judge in that particular case only ruled against using OnStar to eavesdrop because it interfered with the proper operation of the OnStar communicator, so that if the drivers had experienced some sort of emergency they wouldn't have been able to use it to call for help - much like the police bugging your phone in a way that prevents you from being able to call 911. It didn't have anything to do with the eavesdropping being objectionable to the courts in principle.

It seems a bit petty: you're considered dangerous enough that the police secretly put a GPS transmitter in your car, you remove it ("hey, what's this? I don't recognize it"), sell it ("oh, Fred down the way might know what to do with it")...and suddenly you're being arrested for selling an object that, as far as you know, was legal to sell. As far as you could possibly know. Because you were being tracked in connection with some other, significant crime.Even if you were charged, it'd be hard to get a jury t

Guys forget about judges, buses, smashing them to pieces and whatnot. You have two tracking devices. The obvious thing to do with them is to glue them to the politicians cars. One to a democrat, the other to a republican. Bonus points if you get a friend to cross-file fake DMCA requests from the respective victims to one another. Jackpot if you can crack their wireless connections and download a gig or two of child porn, Disney movies and instructions for growing pot. Then file an anonymous tip or two...
If things are to change it needs to have negative consequences for the people who make the rules...

According to the article, they already have the SIM card. Use that in another cellphone to call in on a dialup and download the port, etc. and then re-install the sim card back into the unit before tacking it to the respective politican's car.

Why don't they just let it go instead of digging a deeper hole for themselves by arresting him and lying. This is almost as bad as the recent incident of the under-not-so-good-cover police agents provocateuse with the rocks trying to start a riot in Montebello, Quebec.

As stated in the article, he asked the police officer whose mobile phone device was contacting if the police had left their property on his car. When they denied they were theirs, he concluded they were fair game to sell as they were on his property. I think the judge might take a dim view of this.

The Summary Proceedings Act, which covers tracking devices, says a warrant should be obtained for a tracking device but an officer can install one without a warrant if there is not time and the officer believes a judge would issue a warrant.

I mean that puts Australia more towards the Fascist end of the scale than even the US doesn't it?(and that's hard to do)

Since when is surveillance ever an issue of immediacy? You usually engage in it over a protracted period in order to slowly gather evidence. Also a warrant hardly ever takes more than a day or even a few hours to get in any country I ever heard of. Anyhow, what Judge is going to refuse a warrant for a bugging device considered so important by the Police that they have already installed it?

This seems to be a deliberate loop-hole in the law to allow for warrant-less surveillance. The very fact that a regular police force investigating a fairly low-level crime uses this tactic kind of implies that this is fairly widespread or typical behaviour as well.

a man being investigated by the police found tracking devices in two of his cars, ripped them out,

The article was very sparse regarding what problem he had with the cars that led to the discovery. I will take a speculation stab at this. Cell phones are well known for causing RFI problems with poorly shielded electronics doing everything from causing keyboards on PC's to lock-up to putting a buzz into radio and stereo gear.

The location of the device was on the passenger side footwell. This would place it close to the engine computer in many cars. It may be an easy to install location for the police and the GPS antenna can be located under the dashboard giving a good location for GPS reception through the plastic dash and windscreen, but the cell transmitter in that location could and probably did cause problems with both the stereo and engine computer. As he stated, it was a botched installation that led to the discovery. A proper install would have located the cell transmitter in the trunk away from sensitive electronics to transmit out the rear window. The car ran poorly, but it was probably the teltale radio noise that geve it away. Removing it fixed both the radio and engine computer.

This interference issue is why most magnet mount tracking devices are mounted on the rear of the car away from the engine compartment. Inside the plastic rear bumper on a metal bracket is a favorite location. there is little chance of interference revealing it's presence, and good GPS and cell signals.

The tracking devices were attached to collect evidence. The smart thing would have been to leave them attached and continue life in a nice, law abiding fashion. Instead, Mr. Dimwit rips the bloody things out of the cars and tries to sell 'em. Duh.

OK, so it uses a SIM card,which apparently also works in a mobile phone. So, it might be fun to pick up a cheap cellular phone from ebay, then slap the card in and regularly make a few bothersome phone calls to various numbers that have a caller-ID, then slap the card back in the device(s) before attaching them to one of the vehicles mentioned in the previous post.

Personally, though, I think it might be more fun to attach the thing to a sewer-sucker or garbage truck... something unpleasant at any rate. Perhaps the interface would allow one to reconfigure the number it calls out to, so you could make use of the device itself.

Regardless, though,it seems that - legitimately or not - the police have it in for this guy, and doing anything of the like is just going to piss them off and provoke an unpleasant response. How about taking them to court for police harassment? If they don't have a warrant then you've got a good case (and who knows, you might be able to keep the things after, especially if it's denied they own them). If they do... well at least you get to see what the grounds of the warrant were.